Anyone who has ever done any off-roading knows the danger of inadvertently becoming committed to a trail. If you aren’t careful you can become too focused on overcoming the obstacle ahead of you without understanding what lies beyond. Before you know it you can end up boxed in, unable to turn around and go back the way you came.

This happened to a friend and me about ten years ago. We were up in the high country in Colorado and thought we would have more options to return than ended up materializing. We started off with an extremely steep uphill climb, and after that we were hoping not to try the same hill on the way back. When we came to the expected return trail it was closed off however, so we pushed on for the next one. We didn’t have much choice because the trail was so narrow turning around wasn’t an easy option. A little further down the trail we slid down a grade strewn with softball size loose rocks. There was no way we could drive back up that hill even if we could turn around. We were now committed to the trail.

From there the trail only got worse. It got even narrower and there was a large drop-off on one side. It was narrower than the trail in the picture and had no guard rail. At one point there was even a natural spring emptying right into the road creating a muddy section of the trail yet with the drop-off still there. Somewhere along the way we bottomed out hard and the fuel gauge started dropping very quickly; luckily it was only an issue with the gauge which later fixed itself. Around the same time the check engine light came on due to the lack of oxygen at altitude. Both were false alarms but given the context they definitely got our attention. We ultimately made it through to a paved road many miles from where we had started. However, we could have easily ended up spending the night sleeping in the back of my buddy’s SUV at 10,000 feet had we become stuck, broken down, or the trail had become impassable or closed.

I thought of this experience when reading Susan Walsh’s excellent post The Grim Beeper. Susan shares stats on women in the US continuing to delay marriage and childbirth. These women are betting that the trail ahead is passable and will lead them where they want to go. If they are right they will be able to “have it all”. If they are wrong, by the time they figure this out it likely will already be too late. They will be fully committed to the trail by then.

Susan points out that there are signs of trouble on the trail ahead. Women are graduating from college at higher rates than men:

The current sex ratio nationwide in American colleges and universities is 57% female, 43% male, and the gap is widening. This means that among today’s college graduates, 25% of women will not marry college educated men. Let me say that again.

Among today’s college graduates, 25% of women will not marry college educated men.

That estimate is actually rosy because it assumes that men will want to marry in equal numbers to women. The data was not analyzed by sex, but in an era of misandrist family law that’s a dubious claim.

This likely over predicts the differences in future earnings power between college age men and women because women tend to be underrepresented in higher paying majors and overrepresented in unproductive majors. Still, women tend to be more concerned with credentials than men, so many of the college educated women Susan mentions will not be willing to marry a man without a degree even if he out earns her. Add to this the likelihood that a sizable number of men could see the lack of weddings and LTRS amongst their peers as a signal that their 20s would be better spent working the minimum and hanging out with friends instead of knocking themselves out to become a provider. Lastly, as Susan points out the extremely biased social and legal environment could cause many good husband candidates to decide marriage isn’t for them.

Susan points out that women are surprisingly unaware of the reality of their own limited fertility:

During a recent story that aired on NPR one infertile woman in her early 40s couldn’t understand it. She insisted that she works out regularly, does yoga, even has a personal trainer. She eats well and is healthy. She never knew that her ovaries were becoming less productive in spite of those measures.

This is a classic case of a missing fear. Feminists worked to remove the fear even though the risks are real. From the NPR story Susan quotes (emphasis mine):

A decade ago, a campaign by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine sparked a vicious backlash. Ads on public buses in several big cities featured a baby bottle shaped like an hourglass, to warn women their time was running out. But women’s rights groups called it a scare tactic that left women feeling pressured and guilty.

While it may make some women uncomfortable, the reality is fertility declines much sooner than most women understand (data from chart in this page H/T Bill):

However telling women the truth is cruel, as one woman in the NPR story complained:

I just feel like it’s something else they lump onto women that we have no control over,” says filmmaker Monica Mingo, who’s blogged about her decade-long effort to conceive.

The reality of a male pill will be that individual men will be able to decide who gets to be a mother. But the fun part will be the inertia of the delusions of feminism with women still riding the cock carousel and and taking that end of man crap. All along individual men will be able to lie and deceive at there leasure only instead of an unwanted pregnancy we will have a wanted unpregnancy. And then we have another carousel rider past 45 and childless and not by her own hand.
As Dalrock and the data shows most of these women are childless out of delusion. ( They did it to themselves out of ignorance) The real fun is the emotional screaching that comes from a woman having it done to her by men just looking to use a penis warmer. From 35 to 45 that lady is going to be crazy, Imagine a childless women at that age screwing every guy she meets twice a day trying to pussy whip the guy into have a kid with her. She can’t even have a whoops baby. With 40 years of feminism have nothing really to offer other than sex. . They have no clue they don’t cook,clean or comfort anybody,infact I think women today measure themselves against each other by how big of a burden they can be on everybody.
It is gong to be fun humping all of that desperate pussy. Hell turning it down may be just as fun LOL

On the one hand, women today from every background are fed so much feminist propaganda that we fail to even recognize it as such. I remember taking religion classes in college and the ONLY concern the professor had was about so-called “problematic” patriarchal practices within Abrahamic faiths. We spent much time critiquing things from a feminist standpoint, as if that were the only valid way of thinking.

I remember one class I took about feminism in Islam and the materials we read were all pure feminist garbage, poorly written and badly argued. Of course I say this now with 20/20 hindsight. At the time, I thought the highest evil in the world was making women feel like they were not the same as men for any reason or that there was any difference whatsoever between the two. Anything that threatened that paradigm had to be wrong, by default. The fact that women’s bodies are different from men’s, an absolute truth, can be “offensive” and “guilt-tripping” on women reflects this kind of belief. And then there’s all the whining about men being able to conceive at virtually any age while women cannot.

Colleges are insulated environments full of left-leaning ideologues. If more women than men are being processed through these institutions, we can expect the logical fallacies of feminism to corrupt more and more women. Without religious institutions or social mores that fight the frauds of feminism, there is no balance, and I hate to say it, barely any hope for women to wise up before it’s too late i.e. they lose their fertility.

Dalrock, I really appreciate your blog and the others in your blogroll. I like the religious perspective you offer, though I am not a Christian.

The Male Pill will be Will be a double-whammy for Women. Not only will it prevent Women from fulfilling their biological imperative to conceive [baby rabies] and deny them the social status of motherhood amongst their peers [other Women]. It will deny Women the option of early retirement from the world of full time work via the gateway of motherhood. Most Women don’t want to work full time until they reach retirement age. They would much rather be a SAHM full time or with the option of part time work if they feel like it.This will suck for Women big time.

I expect that there will be a dramatic increase in the number of false accusations against Men by Women when the Male Pill becomes widely available and used, as Women take out their anger, frustration and hostility and seek revenge against Men individually and in general for denying them the option of motherhood and early retirement from work.

As a regular reader and, now, first time commenter to your blog, may I acknowledge and applaud your wonderful output on an important subject close to the hearts of most decent people, both male and female. Thank you!

I am in my early 50’s, male, and amongst other things; decent, honourable, interesting, reasonably intelligent, not without life issues, and never married. I also have a fair number of battle scars from pursuing a satisfying intimate relationship with a woman!

I am really horrified by what has occurred in the sphere of intimate relationships twixt men and women in my lifetime, seemingly as a consequence of malevolent influences, such as feminism, which have almost certainly ensured that women are increasingly committed to a path leading only to being alone and miserable. I have come to the realisation that many contemporary women simply never consider the question as to what they bring to the relationship party; rather, they act as if in a candy shop, wanting everything, but actually having very little money to buy even a gob-stopper, let alone what they want, and feel deserving of.

At my age, I have accepted that my chances of achieving a satisfying intimate relationship with a woman are extremely limited. I am pained by this and grieve for the loss of that which could have been. I am a philogynist; I love women, but they seem to pitifully unaware of the havoc they cause in the live’s of men.

I support your output and urge women to seriously consider the sometimes harsh truths presented here in order to optimise your changes of real love and intimacy with a man, with all that that entails… for better or worse, in sickness and in health; to have and to hold…

Thanks for the link Dalrock! I couldn’t resist including the Mingo quote. The only way it makes sense as a statement is if “they” is God and “it” is aging. How to blame men for the female reproductive timeline is something not even feminists have figured out. In reality, feminists have “lumped” their agenda “onto” women. A girl taking sex ed (at least in Boston) will learn techniques for exploring her sexuality at 15, but not the basics about her own biology.

I clicked to see Susan Walsh’s article and took note of her chart showing the rapidly rising age of first marraiges. This put me in mind of something which I think everyone knows or at least used to know, but which I do not recall see being mentioned on blogs like this, namely: The older you are the harder it is to settle down with someone else. Younger people are more plastic; people become set in their ways as they age. That Prince you always promissed yourself is just not going to be there, as you will only see the faults; faults which a teenager would miss. This of course has to be added to the fact that if you have slepped with say over a hundred people you are only going to start making comparisons; comparisons that would not be available to a younger virgin.

I know a woman in her late forties who married at forty (to a man who made it clear he did not want children). Unbeknownst to him, a few years later, she underwent fertility treatment, but without success. She is not aware I know this, but tells me how fabulous her life is – endless solo holidays in romantic locations – (I suspect a bit of adulterous praying and loving, because she went all coy when I hinted at it, but even Marco, Fernando, or Mohamed cannot make you fertile).

“These marriage-phobic men were more likely than other unmarried men in the sample to have come from nontraditional families, to be nonreligious and to have fathers who were not involved in their lives.”

“The current sex ratio nationwide in American colleges and universities is 57% female, 43% male, and the gap is widening. This means that among today’s college graduates, 25% of women will not marry college educated men.”

This is an especially rosy picture, because we should not forget all of the college educated men who have no qualms marrying or dating women without a college degree.

There is also a small subset of college educated men who are married to or dating foreign women, but I would guess that this is less than ~ 5% of college educated men.

Perhaps college educated American women should open up to the idea of marrying or dating college educated foreigners living in the US?

I got into an argument about this with a female friend of mine sparked off by Susan’s article. I said I would never marry a careerist but instead would be most interested in younger women that made it a priority to start a family instead of one that only brought it on by her biological clock and hasn’t demonstrated any desire/ability to settle down. All I could do is stand in awe of her hamster. She claimed older men wanting to marry younger women was both ageist and sexist. That I was misogynist for holding the woman responsible for her choices (her word was judging) of wanting a career and better herself. She cited fertility programs, because I guess as a man I should be ok with them and expected to pay for the expensive programs. She called Susan’s article a scare tactic, refutes that hypergamy should be an issue/problem, and then went on to champion single people finding a way to have kids.

It was my first experience with such a speedy, gymnastically inclined hamster. All from someone who’s 24, recently married, and who I would have thought interested in the article from past conversations. I backed away slowly.

Thank god I’m 26, have time to find a younger, non-carousel rider while building my career and digesting this red pill I’ve found. The male pill hitting in 5 years will probably be perfectly timed for me.

May I say something else, hopefully pertinent. From conversations I have had in the past with women, it is clear that women like to have college degrees so that if needs be they will always be solvent and thus not reliant on a man who may be out of financial luck – who can blame them for this, but, in a Malthusian way, the more that women do that, by taking a higher proportion of college places, and thus therafter presumably the better paid work, the less likely it is that men will have the money to support them, at least to the standard they believe theirs. If one combines that with female dislike of unemployed men and men who earn less than themselves, they solve one problem whilst creating an even worse one, namely that there will then be no suitable men. This is surely an unsolvable paradox. A little like scissors, paper, stones.

I really dont know why Dalrock continues to support walsh, as his site is obviously at odds with hers

She hates mra’s, gamers etc., as they correctly point out marriage is a lost cause

She also like some crazed dingbat, thinks if women settled for beta’s , as early as possible, it somehow makes marriage ok for women …. it doesnt get more retarded then that …

This directly contradicts Dalrocks OWN data, where he specifically states the MAIN REASON women are divorcing in the MILLIONS is because the women ARE SETTLING, after a lifetime of carousel riding …

Also she directly contradicts Dalrocks OWN data on womens need of hypergamy

By associating with someone as batshit crazy as walsh, he’s putting the credibility of his site at risk

As I pointed out my earlier post … Again as usual Walsh misses the main problems with telling women to marry early

Also Walsh GROSSLY WHITEWASHES the problems of a man marrying a young 20+ woman, as young chicks are not only hundreds of times more irrational & hormonal then an older chick, not to mention the greater amount of shit tests, & temper tantrums most young women throw

Then theres also the fact of UNDER-EDUCATION & IGNORANCE of a 20+ year old woman, a male would have to put up with if he married a younger chick

There is a reason, older men succesful in their 40’s marry younger chicks, cos they pretty much know by now, how to handle ignorant, immature, under-educated 20 year old sluts

Walsh as usual is in batshit form, when she tells women to marry early, while ignoring all the crap & hideous ignorance & stupidity of 20 year old women

“There is a reason, older men succesful in their 40′s marry younger chicks, cos they pretty much know by now, how to handle ignorant, immature, under-educated 20 year old sluts”

and then a little light bulb went on in my head.

Nice thinking! I had never thought about why older man, younger tart marriage _might_ work. Personally I think that marriage is a bat-shit crazy idea for a man, but you make an interesting point (again).

@Rmaxd
“I really dont know why Dalrock continues to support walsh, as his site is obviously at odds with hers”
I’d actually disagree. I think they both see a problem with marriage and are approaching the problem from different directions. She’s trying to educate people on how to make it work as is – mostly to an audience of women – by trying to find and feed them the female ‘red pill’. Get them to see the problems and find solutions that work with marriage as it is and open them up to the realities of the law so they’ll be more understanding about changing the laws, to signing prenups, ect. Also – she has one of the rare sites that actually has a conversation going with its readers – gamers and men and women included. Her posts get hundreds of well thought out comments and is a great place to see different points of view. Hopefully great ideas will be spawned there and solutions found that benefit both sexes. Is that so bad?

Dalrock does a lot of the same, only from a man’s perspective. He educates on things he’d recommend looking for in a wife if you will get married, but mostly is cautionary to begin with. Avoid marriage to the wrong person and do what you can to educate yourself and friends of the problems in it. Then go find ways to change the laws, or avert them. Overall he cares more for the kids hurt than the carousel riders screwing over men. Society needs kids to go on and most people will have a drive to pass on their genes, he just doesn’t want the kids to get hurt and then has secondary concerns for the mistakes of the parents and the mess they made for themselves.

That is the problem of unforeseen consequences and dumbing down the SATs so more women could go to college. College is just a racket these days, with so many useless degrees making a bunch of average twits think they’re more intelligent than they are and with women taking jobs that could have gone to men, who then could have supported a family rather than being unemployed. It’s a disaster for society.

No, Walsh’s site GROSSLY WHITEWASHES women & sluts, while never addressing the very real problems of HER SOLUTIONS, which are just basically stolen from game & mra’s

Walsh’s site harms BOTH men & women

She simply refuses to recognise ANY contradictions to why women & men should marry

Walsh is not only deluded, but loves batting for team woman at any cost

Walsh is NOT game for chicks, its a typical whitewashing of american sluts & skanks, by a carousel riding damaged goods, settled for a beta woman

The fact is, I KNOW women like walsh … the longer she blogs, the more resistance she gets … the more batshit & feminist her site will come … damaged goods women like walsh NEVER change, they are mentally scarred for life

Anyone who’s followed her site, can clearly see walsh’s blog self destructing over the years

Walsh is the poster child, for carousel riding, she is THE poster child for damaged goods

This is what an american woman who’s ridden the carousel & become mentally scarred as a result, looks like …

Dalrock on the other hand goes out of his way to be both realistic for men & women, I dont think the manginas & feminists who read Dalrock, realise how much walsh hates most of dalrocks posts … lol

Walsh is a sad reflection of a woman who is faced with the truth, EVERY DAY, but has allowed herself to be damaged emotionally & mentally, from YEARS of riding the carousel, she refuses to face the truth

As far as im concerned walsh has ZERO excuses for her ignorant behaviour on her site

Can Dalrock even account for a statement like this from walsh herself? …

““Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.”

There is also a small subset of college educated men who are married to or dating foreign women, but I would guess that this is less than ~ 5% of college educated men.
I suppose it heavily depends on a field you are educated/work in. From what I have seen in Western Europe up to 50% of engineering majors marry a foreigner* (usually Eastern European). But the sample is really small – just my personal observation.
In my country (Eastern Europe) most engineers, I know, are married to high school educated women. And even in our country more women major now (in useless subjects, no surprise) than men.

* Relative numbers of technology & engineering graduates in male population are generally low, so even if all marry a foreigner it would just mean a small portion of all marriages and would not excite statistitians to even bother to measure it.

Opus, CL, you’ve just touched the tip of the iceberg. It’s not just the dumbing down of the SAT’s, university applications in the US put less weight on SAT scores and more on social activities as well, thereby guaranteeing fewer young men in college and more women. Affirmative Action /EEO efforts pretty much guaranteed for years that a woman with any sort of BA, no matter how useless, could get a job at least in government – women in the last 20 years have become the “working betas”, displacing men in midrange jobs, meanwhile hypergamy runs uncontrolled. The results are plain to see.

It’s a perfect storm that is building up, where young white men are treated as the scum of the earth their entire childrhood, while young white women screech “where are all the GOOD MEN!” as they approach 30 while they stand on the backs of those men they can’t see. And it’s even worse for young black men / young black women, or young Hispanics.

As I said before in another thread: Beta men make Western civilization work. Punishing them basically for being what they are is not a good idea in the long term. But the 2nd wave, 3rd wave, permanent wave, new wave, etc. feminists either can’t see this or, like French aristocrats of 1750, just don’t care. “Apres moi, le deluge” might as well be their motto.

And the various flavors of conservatives are basically in the same bin as their feminist mistresses.

What if it never ends? What if men really do just remain disposable? From what I’ve seen, most high-skilled betas, such as engineers, are driven to do what they by instincts and not necessarily by a need for sex. They would want to do it even if they didn’t get sexual rewards – they already are doing that!

All the guys on this thread celebrating the advent of the male birth control pill may want to put the cork back in the champagne bottle. The male birth control pill has been 5 years away for the last 30 years now—I really don’t think it’s any closer to being a reality, although I really hope I’m wrong.

One of the main reasons male birth control is in a rut is that that effective methods are being ignored because of the lack of profitability in favor of focusing on more profitable ideas with much more severe health downsides for men. For instance, the male birth control pill option currently under evaluation combines progestin and testosterone. It’s been pretty effective in trials, but no one knows the long-term effect of testosterone suppression in men (and personally I would absolutely refuse to take any hormonal based birth control). It’s popular among drug companies because men would have to buy a new set of pills regularly thus making for larger profits.

More effective, longer-lasting, non-hormonal options are being completely ignored, however. The most effective of the these is RISUG—which has been in use in India for many years now. RISUG works by coating the vas deferens with a substance that alters the pH of the tube, thus rendering the sperm too damaged to fertilize the egg. It’s is cheap, 99 percent effective…and lasts 10 years (and competely reversible at any point during that time). This last reason is why it’s difficult to turn a profit, hence near radio silence on RISUG in the western world.

Male birth control won’t be the savior until we get serious about providing men with non-hormonal options that are cheap and easily reversible. And since there isn’t really a profit motive for pharmaceutical companies to look in this, I think the birth control front will pretty much stay the same as it always has.

Dalrock, I’d be real careful about taking any “analysis” by Susan Walsh seriously. Recall the last paper that she waved around? Recall how she grossly mis-stated the methodology of the poll, in order to claim anonymity where none existed? Either she was too lazy to actually read the methodology, not intelligent enough to understand the methodology, or she just flat out lied about the methodology. Which is the case? I don’t know, and frankly it doesn’t matter, really, she proved that she cannot be trusted to cite anything accurately. Add to this the fact that after I posted the true methodology on this site she never had the maturity to admit any error at all.

Bad idea. The female pill was a bad idea, the male pill no less so. The introduction of artificial contraception correlates with the steady rise in divorce rates, more STD infection, more bitter spinsters, more sluts, environmental problems due to al the artificial estrogen being flushed down the world’s toilets, more sexless marriages due to how the pill alters a woman’s attraction to men – the list goes on. That RISUG sounds iffy too and no more desirable than a vasectomy as Lord only knows what those chemicals will do in the long run.

All this messing with the body in an attempt to separate sexual pleasure from procreation is bound to have consequences, many of which are the ones people who write and read blogs such as this one have noticed and dislike intensely. Medicine of any kind will not save us.

Male contraception WONT be hormonal. Thats just one of the ways. there is a doctor in Israel who is working on making the tails of semen not functioning by manipulating one protein. he very near starting first human trials with great success in mice and nearly no side effects. plus it comes in one, three and 12 month options along with minimal side effects. Personally ill never take hormones but something like risug and the one out of Israel are on the way.

If you’ve actually read her site, you’ll find that she does, in fact, note that an increasingly number of men are going to be put off marriage by what she terms “misandrist family law”. She urges the girls reading to avoid slutting it up if that’s not really what they want and to be strategic about pursuing a mate instead of frivolous. I fail to see that problem with any of this.

And the idea that Walsh is somehow a poster child of damaged goods strikes me as batshit. She rode the carousel in her day and snatched down a beta provider when she was done with it—as most women were able to do in her time. She was born into the ballgame before men started waking up and the economic equation had changed much. She now sees that the tide is shifting and is attempting to help girls coming behind her who won’t be able to follow the same playbook due to a variety socio-cultural and -economic factors.

The problem I see with her blog (among many) is that it does absolutely nothing to encourage young men to challenge their fealty to the gynocentric imperatives that are drilled into their heads from birth. In fact, it encourages men to learn Game for explictly gynocentric aims—her version of “man up, for the benefit of women”. She thinks men should learn game…to make themselves more acceptable for women. The various entitlements of women are just taken as is and never questioned.

I don’t necessarily blame her for this—I’m not sure any woman could be counted on to pushback competently against culturally ingrained gynocentrism. And urging men to learn Game for their own sake would be counterproductive to her female readership—to the extent a man becomes alpha and aware of his ability to engage in sex on his own terms, he’s less likely to want to conform to gynocentric aims and, indeed, sheds much of the betaness and subservience that made him into a useful tool for women.

But the bottom line is that women are going to be reading someone’s blog and they aren’t going to be reading guys like Dalrock, Roosh or The Spearhead. But Susan is someone they might—just might—listen to and it’s better her than Jezebel or The Frisky.

@Rmaxd
I definitely agree with you that she whitewashes marriage. I’ve briefly left a couple comments that she should atleast address marriage, why men are against it, and ways to positively work towards a happy equal marriage when any sane man wouldn’t get into marriage without a damn good prenup, and even thats tricky. She responded with a comment that she was thinking about doing something like that and would work on it. We’ll see what she turns out and if she backs up her words with actions.

I do find her views on cheating and what makes a marriage healthy a very marriage 1.0 approach to obviously marriage 2.0. They’re far to black and white.

I don’t know where you get that she backs sluts and riders. The most recent posts (I haven’t read hers that long and haven’t dug through much of her archives yet with time restraints) seem to shame women on the idea and warn them of their biological clocks, that slutty behaviors mess up the SMP, acknowledge hypergamy as an issue and a bad one, and generally be looking for a solution to dating/LTR/marriage in a culture that is hostile to women that want a LTR. Us betas (including me, working on it) have been overly feminized, aren’t attractive, and don’t know how to make themselves so. Alphas have no incentive to settle down. She’s looking at it from a female perspective and trying to find a solution.

Yes, she supports marriage. She wants to try and make it healthy for both and good for society. She admits that. There’s still some good thoughts in her blog and some better ones in her comment threads from her readers.

Then more and more young men will go their own way. They won’t “manUP” and marry, they won’t work more than is necessary to live in the way they choose, and so forth. The frothing, foaming rage this will generate from feminists and white-knights will be interesting to behold.

From what I’ve seen, most high-skilled betas, such as engineers, are driven to do what they by instincts and not necessarily by a need for sex. They would want to do it even if they didn’t get sexual rewards – they already are doing that!

There are plenty of outlets for the higher intelligence beta men such as gaming, travel, all manner of private tinkering, that have nothing to do with what you are referring to. Since boys are increasingly being taught they are not just useless to society, but actually unwanted, MGTOW is a rational response. Every intelligent beta who works in a low level job in order to get enough money to pay the rent, buy food & keep the high speed network connection running is another potential contributor to the tax base, and to society, that has essentially dropped out. Feminists want that tax base to support their growing army of babymomma voters, and the white knights want manUP’s to get out in the thunderstorm and put the electrical power grid back up.

Beating on betas, punishing men and boys for being what they are, is no way to preserve a civilization. But neither feminists, nor the various flavors of conservatives, are capable of understanding that. They are all like cargo-cult types: oil, electricity, food just magically appear whenever someone waves a plastic card in the air.

Well, “Ever” is a long time. I used to read old magazines in the school library to pass the time. Popular science mags from the 60’s and 70’s were full of “population bomb” doomsaying. it was a given back then that there was no way any country would “ever” see a decline in population unless it was due to some incredible disaster. But “ever” arrived in 2007 when the Japanese population went into decline. Yup, there are fewer Japanese alive today than there were one year ago, and most other countries are following the same track with a few exceptions.

The entire feminist experiment rests upon compliant men at all levels of society enforcing ever more zero-tolerance BS laws on other men. Any decline in compliance is a direct threat to the feminist machine. That is why they foam at the mouth over MGTOW.

A society that punishes men and boys just for existing is not a society that will continue to exist for more than a generation or two. Nor does it deserve to exist at all. Beta men would be wise to learn how to take care of themselves in as many different ways as possible…

Men and women are the proverbial apple and orange, you can´t compare them like you are trying to do.

If women want to go out and knock themselves out, great; if it is really productive work for society, it raises the ship as a whole. If men decide to enjoy their lives in a different manner, it has an effect on the whole also.

Maybe an individual man can look, unattractive at a certain productivity level. But if the aggregate level of male productivity goes down; he´ll just blend in.

Can´t compare women to men in this sense. You can compare men to other men and women to other women though as I´ve alluded to.

Women have to choose from among the pool of men that is available. Increasingly the pool has become larger for both men and women as we are all more connected, easily reached. But women can make themselves more attractive( or think they are making themselves more attractive) while men throughout the world are becoming one with the douche, or herbs and it doesn´t matter much.

In fact from a male standpoint, cool.

The problem Dal is that our memories of a different time are still a little too fresh but ya know what.

I counted up how many of my grandparents generation( greatest generation) are still alive. About 20% and they are very old. In 10 years they will all be gone, even a significant share of the boomers will be gone.

I think your analysis of HUS was very fair. Honestly I don’t think many women are going to read a lot of the manosphere blogs and be moved to change, it took a lot of time for me before the defensiveness and general embarrassment that I felt at the revulsion towards women on the manosphere blogs before I could view them more objectively. HUS offers that space.

dragnetMale birth control won’t be the savior until we get serious about providing men with non-hormonal options that are cheap and easily reversible. And since there isn’t really a profit motive for pharmaceutical companies to look in this, I think the birth control front will pretty much stay the same as it always has.

Looks like a grey market niche to me. A non-hormonal compound that would render a man infertile for some period of time could be sold via the “nutracutical” route. The body building world has a lot of organic compounds that have known effects, that are sold in various ways often over the net. I’m not referring to the various spammer sites or botnets that peddle pills, but rather sites with a good reputation. Since these compounds are not intended to cure a disease, they essentially are an end-around the FDA so long as they do not cause harm. Seems to me that there’s an existing distribution model for the stuff being tested in Israel, if I understand what they are researching. Not so sure about that thing from india you refer to, as this is the first I’ve heard of it.

Given the one-sided nature of “family” today, a reliable means for young men to control their fertility would indeed be significant. And the canard about “women worry men would forget to take their pill” is blatant projection, just as it was back in the old 1970’s copy of “Our Bodies, Our Selves”. We all know who “forgets” to take contraceptive precautions…

“The Male Pill will be Will be a double-whammy for Women. Not only will it prevent Women from fulfilling their biological imperative to conceive [baby rabies] and deny them the social status of motherhood amongst their peers [other Women]. ”

You guys keep throwing out this canard. I don’t think you’ve thought that through. While they’ll no longer be able to trick men into being fathers, there are still sperm banks. I personally know 4 women who went that route. All chose that because “there are no good men out there”. All 4 were also women I’d pursued in the past. Strangely, they don’t get why I treat them like shit now.

That quote was featured in one of my favorite children’s science fiction author’s books.

It’s painful, to hear how people speak of you when you’re not listening. But really, the vast majority of blue pill men still seem to think just fine of us women, so I know it’s not as if I’m surrounded by scorn wherever I go.

I don’t really see the logic if a woman wants to get pregnant of just having sex with a random stranger. Sperm bank makes far more sense. Get the best genes, no STDs etc etc.

And for all this fear of women tricking them into pregnancy and desperation for the male pill, there seems to be an awful lot of bravado amongst these PUA types about ‘rawdogging’. None of it really adds up.

CelesteIt’s painful, to hear how people speak of you when you’re not listening.

Not true for most men. We have the privilege of hearing what women think of us pretty much all the time, from various sources. Women don’t care if we are listening or not, from what I can tell. Except when they do…some men get to soak in criticism at home, as well as the rest of the world.

But really, the vast majority of blue pill men still seem to think just fine of us women, so I know it’s not as if I’m surrounded by scorn wherever I go.

One of the many standard complaints women have about men is our control over our emotions. If women were truly thoughtful, they’d be downright thankful for the degree of self control required to wear the mask at all times. If you doubt me, consider this: in comment streams on blogs, a man can choose to wear any of several masks, or he can just tell the truth as he see it, no matter whose toes get stepped on, no matter how brutal that truth may seem.

Some number of men you see every day might be contributors to Spearhead. But you can’t know which ones they are…

“And for all this fear of women tricking them into pregnancy and desperation for the male pill, there seems to be an awful lot of bravado amongst these PUA types about ‘rawdogging’. None of it really adds up.”—Lily

You cant trap someone who has nothing. And there is a strategy to whom they raw dog. No its not woman in late 20’s and 30s with baby rabies. Its younger women open to abortion.

Perhaps I’m surrounded by Spearhead readers without knowing it, it’s just that every man I’ve ever had a friendship with has been kind in his opinion of women, and grudgingly accepting of some game tidbits I’ve thrown their way to help with their LJBF woes.

Men hear the ugly truth of what women hear a lot, and women also hear the ugly truth of what women hear a lot.

But honestly, I really do think that most people don’t have awful thoughts about the majority of people they come into contact with. I suspect that the average person on the street isn’t thinking resentful and ugly thoughts about me.

LilyI don’t really see the logic if a woman wants to get pregnant of just having sex with a random stranger. Sperm bank makes far more sense. Get the best genes, no STDs etc etc.

Sperm banks were created in the 1960’s for the exclusive use of married couples where the man was infertile. Today the primary users are homosexual couples and single women. However, with anonymity no longer guaranteed, and with some efforts to go after sperm donors for child support, and last but most importantly the anguish of sperm donor children now coming out – don’t count on this situation to continue indefinitely.

And for all this fear of women tricking them into pregnancy and desperation for the male pill, there seems to be an awful lot of bravado amongst these PUA types about ‘rawdogging’. None of it really adds up.

PUA’s, no matter what SoCons may say, are a minority. They might be exaggerating, too. Some people do that. On the flip side, women have been “accidentally” getting pregnant for a long, long time. I was discussing this with a female relation the other week; she recalled conversations from her high school in the late 1970’s, where 17 year old girls made no secret of their plan to get pregnant and married, in that order, to some “hunk” or other. This led me to recall the varsity cheerleader from my high school who got knocked up by one of her many boyfriends – and who named the most serious minded one as “daddy”.

Look, reliable contraception for women is not new at all. There are very few “oops” pregnancies since the 1970’s. 18 years of financial servitude for a few, or even one, sexual experience is reality. When and if men can control their fertility, it will have profound effects upon culture.

Women will no doubt be enraged. Since that seems to be the normal emotional state for a lot of women, many men won’t even notice. After a while, the loudest noise can be tuned out..or one just goes deaf.

Since you’ve managed to ignore my point multiple times, I’ll spell it out:

1. Men in my experience are constantly under criticism from various sources all day long. Our many faults are held up to use incessantly. Most of us are self critical to some degree, and so we “look in the mirror” regularly, with brutal honesty.

2. Women in my experience are constantly praised and flattered, except in superficial, cosmetic ways where they can be brutal to each other. Most women are self critical only in terms of their appearance, and so when they “look in the mirror” the only faults they see are those that an industry exists to alleviate.

3. Women make no secret of their opinions of men. I can’t count how many times I’ve overheard all sorts of crap from some hen party in a restaurant, a coffee shop, a night club. Never head the same sort of thing from a group of men: specific complaints about specific situations are not in the same ballpark as the endless “All men are…” parties. Not the same at all.

Conclusion: Men as a group know how they look to others, especially women. Women as a group have no clue how they look to men. None. In anonymous / pseudoanonymous fora, some men will choose to write the truth as they see it. For many women, this will be the first time they have ever encountered real, reasoned, impassioned criticism, and it shocks & angers them. Nothing in their life has prepared them for the experience.

(I suppose it is too much to expect some 2nd wave feminist to hold up an honest mirror to women. She’d surely see something in her own reflection not to her liking.)

And with a single sentence, anything you could or would say on this blog has no ben made irrelevant. Take heart to the fact that now, the only things we will think of you is a four letter word starting with c.

AR: “However, with anonymity no longer guaranteed, and with some efforts to go after sperm donors for child support, and last but most importantly the anguish of sperm donor children now coming out – don’t count on this situation to continue indefinitely.” Change will take many, many years. At least women today over 25 will not lose the opportunity to join the party. Women are really good at rationalizing that they will be the exception being able to bring up a kid who does not get hurt from her egocentrism. And the guys are not much better. *A lot* of men are volunteering sperm to women through internet contacts. No care for the children or for other citizens/tax payers.

My original comment was in defense of Susan Walsh’s blog. Basically, I think y’all are ignoring the fact that very few women are going to come to a place like this and change their minds. But they might be moved by Walsh’s place.

Interesting personal note: I’ve never been called a cunt before. MENCALLMETHINGS hashtag time !!!! eleventy!!!

Eh, I’ve been told I’ve been spot on before on Dalrock’s blog. I agree with Anonymous Reader’s assessment regarding what folks on the street are thinking. “Most people are not thinking ANYTHING about you” was my response to a perceived paranoia that the average woman on the street is thinking awful things about the average man. I just think most folks are ignoring each other.

And this response is precisely why Walsh will attract and actually be able to communicate with women.

Chicken biryani (an Indian dish) for dinner tonight! With a sweet potato casserole.

Well PUAs or regardless, if I just think of men I know irl they are not as protective of their sperm as some of the people on here. It’s more amongst younger men (say 25) but I guess they are not very good with future time orientation. I think taking a gamble on a young 20 something more likely to have an abortion, then well it’s that a gamble. I also find this attitude towards abortion quite interesting on a Christian blog.

Actually thinking about it out of the men I know whose sperm women would most likely want (hah hah ‘night of the evil sperm robbers’ they are some of the most careless. Even if they’re wealthy and actually have something to lose financially).

Also sperm clinics in the UK are doing ok. They had a lull when the laws changed but then they have now got a rush. A lot of it is apparently married men. This doesn’t surprise me, I know quite a few men whose families are complete who don’t mind the idea of donating sperm. In fact an older (40) friend wanted a baby (split up after a long relationship) and thought she had missed the boat and a few men offered. In the end she met someone but still.

I don’t think women would worry about men being in the pill in casual sex situations. I think it would be more if they are married to a man and they want another baby and he doesn’t. I’m not sure what the various Christine doctrines would say about that. I am thinking the Catholic one wouldn’t be ok with it.

LavazzaWomen are really good at rationalizing that they will be the exception being able to bring up a kid who does not get hurt from her egocentrism.

Yes, especially those that are Special Snowflake Princesses.

And the guys are not much better. *A lot* of men are volunteering sperm to women through internet contacts. No care for the children or for other citizens/tax payers.

Well, that’s just insane. Insane for the men – zero anonymity – and also for the women.
Although I suppose by providing a traceable sample that does provide some genetic information the child would need to have.

On reflection, you’re right, sperm banks can’t go away. Because that would decrease women’s choices. And that would make them unhaaapy. Since the sole purpose of civilization is to make women haaaapy, that settles the issue.

I don’t think women would worry about men being in the pill in casual sex situations. I think it would be more if they are married to a man and they want another baby and he doesn’t. I’m not sure what the various Christine doctrines would say about that.

I can damn well tell you what WOMEN would have to say about that interolerably, sick, disgusting scenario. Shame on the man who wants to have control of his body!

Legion, I don’t think she meant ‘you’ personally. I think she was making point that most people are so self absorbed they’re not thinking anything about anyone around them.

Just thinking about this sperm thing more, how about an experiment if you don’t believe me. Put a picture up on a dating site of a fairly attractive woman. Say you’re looking for someone to get you pregnant. Guaranteed plenty of fun but NSA. No father involvement needed post said fun. You could even throw in a nurse’s outfit.
Sit back.

CelesteMy original comment was in defense of Susan Walsh’s blog. Basically, I think y’all are ignoring the fact that very few women are going to come to a place like this and change their minds. But they might be moved by Walsh’s place.

Sure, and once again succinctly: women won’t come to a place like this, because they can’t handle the truth about how men see women. Walsh tells them what they want to be told, so of course it will be more popular among women. Because most women cannot handle the truth about women.

Anonymous: So then, my question is, how do you communicate these concepts to women?

Or is it impossible?

If Walsh only tells them what they want to hear, and this place is often too intense (I’m a men’s ally as much as I can be, but I did get called a bitch and a cunt), then how do we communicate these truths?

You are an ally to nobody but your own whims. You will pay lip service to being a mans ally, but you are not, you revert to the same script all women who show up on mens blogs do:

1.) Deny the issue exists.
2.) Create a false equivalency
3.) Shame

Men in this corner of the internet need not care whether women will be moved by anything. YOU are not our audience, the millions of young men who people like you would rather seen ground into dust (allbeit more acceptable dust for your whims) than be treated with a dignity afforded to men by the creator. Either climb on the bus or follow the advice of Ludacris.

Lily if you honestly want to mother a child with whatever riff-raff will show up after essentially doing the same thing as leaving a steak in a dog house, you should not breed honey.
Did you literally mean ‘you’ or did you mean ‘one’?

Exactly Lily, what is a “conflict” for a man to reject a womans desire to procreate (and probably falls under the definition of domestic abuse) is a WOMANS RIGHT TO CHOOSE and fighting patriarchy if reversed.

I see. Perhaps women aren’t the intended audience of the blog. I wonder who Dalrock’s intended audience is? My impression was that it was anyone concerned about the state of marriage in the US, with a specific focus on showing men the male-specific risks.

@ Rmaxd
I’ll keep an eye out for it. If she seems to be only going for inflammatory issues for the page hits/comment amounts I’ll stop reading her or taking her seriously. So far I haven’t seen anything that has made me want to stop reading her, only stuff to keep in mind that she’s female, pushing for solutions for females. She seems to see the problem and is approaching it from a woman’s point of view.

I doubt I’d be happy with most of what she wants, but she has a discussion going with the commenters. Thats what I really care about on her site – not what she says but where the women who read it go with their logic.

Anonymous: So then, my question is, how do you communicate these concepts to women?

How do I tell the truth to people who demonstrably cannot handle it, is that your question?

Or is it impossible?

Suppose, just hypothetically, it was impossible. What then?

If Walsh only tells them what they want to hear, and this place is often too intense (I’m a men’s ally as much as I can be, but I did get called a bitch and a cunt), then how do we communicate these truths?

It used to be that mothers and grandmothers communicated some of these truths. It used to be that fathers, back when they were allowed to be around their children, communicated some of these truths. It used to be that social mores and cultural structures communicated some of these truths. Do you seriously expect a handful of men to take the place of all those people, social and cultural structures, on a few websites?

Will women be moved by a place like this?

Only to a higher level of anger. Because women as a group cannot handle the truth.

I’m pretty sure there are probably people of both genders who have bigger or smaller families than they personally wanted. Sometimes you just have to compromise.

And sometimes both of you do as God or the Universe or whoever has different plans for you. Often it’s not until someone suffers a loss of their own that they discover everyone else’s. *a prayer for anyone reading who has*.

Perhaps I do just want “the millions of young men who people like you would rather seen ground into dust ” as why ybm says but honestly Dalrock’s blog has taught me a lot about how to be a better wife, and the manosphere in general has made me really understand my attraction triggers and how to transcend them, as well as how to be more empathetic to men.

And if women don’t learn to change their behavior…I don’t want to be nihilistic. Hmm.

The mothers and grandmothers…I agree, that is a strong traditional source of this information. I’m trying to be somewhat of that source for my younger sister, as it is lacking from our mother.

I just hold out hope that the relationships between men and women are redeemable.

Depends on what you meant. If you are indicating that you, as an individual were willing to do that, my comment was directed at you directly. If you were indicating that a disembodied, theoretical “one” was who you were referring to, I also was referring to that same disembodied, theoretical “one”.

Dalrock, thanks for the blog. I’ve enjoyed reading the comments as much as the original postings – the true sign of a great blog. I have to admit…I got a dry mouth reading the intro. I had a similar experience this year near Glenwood Springs, GMU#444, chasing The Elusive Wapiti. The 4WD trail on the way in was dicey but passable – because the mud was frozen. I realized my mistake ALMOST too late – two hours after walking the hills and realizing the ground was softening under the sun, I realized I’d have trouble getting out…by the time I reached the parking area, I had dry heaves from the scares I gave myself. The pucker factor was such that it took most of the drive back to Denver to break the suction seal between the seat and by butt cheeks.

I seriously doubt we’ll ever have a male birth control pill. I won’t speculate on why that is, but I’ll observe we’ve been about 5 years away, for the 15 years I’ve been paying attention.

If it does come to pass, though – it will be interesting to see what/if the impact will be. In a previous job, one of my tasks was to model pricing behavior. The standard assumption with stock prices is “Geometric Brownian Motion”, the so-called “random walk” where prices fluctuate as good and bad news comes out randomly. We found that for certain commodity prices, a “jump diffusion” model is more accurate – nothing happens for weeks, then all hell breaks loose and prices jump geometrically. The frequency of these “poisson events” seems to be correlated to how much spare capacity exists – the most obvious example is electricity prices – when all available power plants are operating, utilities will pay almost anything for the next available megawatt. We saw the same thing in 2009 with the run up in oil prices.

I wonder what the implications in the marriage market will be when a generation of men is unavailable to fulfill the hypergamous desires of a generation of better-educated young women? I wonder what the ratio of surplus women would need to be? I’m not a sociologist, but perhaps the answer can be found in studying French women in the 1920s; Russian women in the 1950s, or African American women today. Is free sex with Alphas and sperm bank usage a “substitute good” for marriage?

“Men are shattered and blind sided by divorce far more than women are. Usually the woman you files for divorce has slowly been making up her mind to do it for some time with much consultation with her girl friends.”

Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

Amen and God bless Jhane Sez. Doug has totally derailed the entire thread with his grandstanding and hyperbole. Every time a woman disagrees with him, he claims “feminist bullshiite.” Munson knows what’s up.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/12/15/relationshipstrategies/the-grim-beeper/#comment-83025
“Women lie down their numbers of lifetime sex partners and cheating partners far more than men lie them up …”
I am aware of ONE fake polygraph study with n=100, and women reduced their number of sexual partners by half a person, on average. I think they said 3.5 instead of 4, approx. If you have other examples, please provide them. Otherwise, this is just another manosphere trope with little or no basis in reality.

Im no expert on this subject but wanted to put my 2 cents in. The issue of the male equivalent of the birth control pill that women on the forum that they seem to be…aware of but not quite solidifying in their heads therefore missing is that the “game” is zero sum. With men having this “new power”, women will have power “taken” (more like rebalancing) from them.
There is a lot of psychological issues here too. This question about the male pill seems to be discounted by the women here by framing it in the scope of “family”/married. That is a diversion. As time passes, families will be diminished while “illegitimate” families will be on the rise (another dynamic of zero sum) so to see it in the scope of “families” would be a little foolish because it will be relatively small compared to the “market” I as a marketer would market to, unmarried men.
With this new “power”, there is a lot of room for psychological abuse. Why should I view women as anything but a lay? Why should I be nice to her? She has nothing on me. Her ultimate weapon was to get herself pregnant, which now has been neutralized. If getting anyone pregnant is out of the question, and people are opportunistic (both men and women) and if women were opportunistic with what was given to them, imagine how men can be the same way. SHE HAS NOTHING ON YOU! In essence, a male pill will allow the freedom to treat people with reckless abandonment, more than what we see today.
Women wont be able to have their “ace up the sleeve” which WILL affect their behavior. It will be subtle at first but when men catch on that they really have no mechanism that holds them accountable, and women continue to treat them like crap, and they are use to being treated like crap, what really do you have on them?

I tend to to view the manosphere as a leading indicator [in time] for the direction of mens attitudes towards women in the greater society as a whole. Judging by the overwhelming hostile reaction of mens comments by non-manosphere men towards Kay Hymowitzs Man Up articles and other similar articles by other authors I think it would be a mistake to dismiss mens growing dis-sastisaction with women as just a manosphere issue.

Ybm,
I think men are entitled to that power because they carry the seed. You’re the one who plants the seed. Doesn’t the farmer choose where to sew the seed? The problem is that the laws give all the rights to the land . I don’t like framing it in this way because society is a “winner takes all” model which is bullshit (Oh, because you are 50.001% right and I am 49.999% right, I am 100% wrong and bare all the cost because the opponent is 0.002 points more right then me). I think children should be made within a family. Outside the family, both parties should have an “equal” stake in the matter.
In regards to the “would game exist without the pill”, I think game would always exist. It is human nature, nurture just brought out the nature to show how ugly it really is. Would game develop as fast as it did without the pill? Well, we amassed a lot of knowledge (arguable, relearned as I believe nothing new is under the sun as in, the concepts and realities always existed) and that was accelerated by the pill because its just mathematical facts, more probability. It was that when a woman got pregnant, she and the guy that did it were tied to each other therefore putting both of the market. The pill gives her a 2nd, 3rd,…..50..100 chances so in that sense, game had fertile grounds to “redevelop”.
What I should have added to the statement I added was “or, women could treat men like human beings and realize that they themselves are human too”

My 10 year old son announced the other day that he was never getting married and never having kids. I know he’s in his “girls are GROSS!” phase, but a part of me wouldn’t really want either of my sons to get married.

Unless society changes dramatically, allowing your son to marry is the same kind of child abuse that not warning him about getting into the van with that creepy dude who offers him candy is.

Maybe I was naive 15 years ago when I got married (in the South), or maybe the world really has changed. I actively try to discourage my younger colleagues from getting married…but substantially all of them already agree with me.

a female blog the fights game makes game more relevant and more powerful. people get energized by antagonism.

a female blog that waters down gameand distorts game and seeks to “build a better beta” is much more dangerous, because it confuses young men into thinking they are really learning game when they are really just becoming better tools for women.

I missed you comment earlier dragnet. when i said check your facts i was referring to the fact that RISUG is still in Phase III clinical trials and the reason so much time has past is because of lack of participants(Drugs take a while to get approved). Didn’t mean to be antagonistic, if your anything like me male contraceptive news is so slow i don’t monitor it monthly so it is easy to get minor facts out of whack.

As far as Walsh is concerned Rivelino’s “Build a better beta” is right. How many people would be up in arms if a man ran a blog trying to “build a better slut” (convincing woman to fuck anything that moves) by convincing them its in their best interest. I know feminists already do this spare me that argument. I don’t expect anyone to be perfect. But she isn’t an ally. She is making things worse. She is a part of the problem not the solution.

@Tony
“SHE HAS NOTHING ON YOU! In essence, a male pill will allow the freedom to treat people with reckless abandonment, more than what we see today.”
Personally, I would see it as more forcing women to treat men like men. In order for women to get what they want, they would have to be worth giving up our resources for and wouldn’t be able to ‘trick us’ by finding a way to get pregnant.

No more concern about mouth to vagina transfer of semen, finding the used condom, or other means. No cuckoldry (whether through intercourse or spermbank) because its hard to say you got pregnant when the man you’re looking to deceive is on the pill.

Impregnating a woman would become a deliberate act she would have to prove she’s worth.

I give Susan Walsh a large break.
1. She got a good outcome and wants others to find the same. Quite OK with me.
2. She grew up well before our post-modern dystopia and must struggle to understand it.
3. She was not really promiscuous and her husband was really beta; see # 2.
4. She is an amazingly generous host. THAT counts for a lot. She lets a lot get on that she cannot fully like.
5. She lives in Boston. I have lived there and I can tell you how far she has traveled away from what passes for common-sense in BeanTown. She is definitely swimming against the tide.

Impregnating a woman would become a deliberate act she would have to prove she’s worth.

LeapofaBeta you are the man. That is the most powerful thing about male birth control. individual men will decide which woman becomes a mother. The hestaria of todays feminist women especially the womens studies professors will be intertaining as hell.

@leap
hey, i replied to your post but it seems to be in moderation hell … I’ve removed the links …

@Leap

This isnt a new thing, walsh deliberately puts down men & mra’s on her site, pretty much every chance she gets …

Walsh’s been doing it for years …

Some of her usual crap, from her recent comments …

Didnt bother reading her post, just scrolled to some of her comments for quotes … they’re everywhere … it doesnt get more ignorant then this …

Sorry Dalrock, i know you like walsh … but this is just bullshit …

“Men are shattered and blind sided by divorce far more than women are. Usually the woman you files for divorce has slowly been making up her mind to do it for some time with much consultation with her girl friends.”

Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

”
You take an intellectual exchange of ideas and resort to personal attacks like a petulant child

Stop it”

Amen and God bless Jhane Sez. Doug has totally derailed the entire thread with his grandstanding and hyperbole. Every time a woman disagrees with him, he claims “feminist bullshiite.” Munson knows what’s up.

“Women lie down their numbers of lifetime sex partners and cheating partners far more than men lie them up …”
I am aware of ONE fake polygraph study with n=100, and women reduced their number of sexual partners by half a person, on average. I think they said 3.5 instead of 4, approx. If you have other examples, please provide them. Otherwise, this is just another manosphere trope with little or no basis in reality.

“a female blog that waters down game and distorts game and seeks to “build a better beta” is much more dangerous, because it confuses young men into thinking they are really learning game when they are really just becoming better tools for women.

Apropos of feminism….it turns out that the late Valerie Solanas still has a fan club. Except now, they are well funded. And they put on neat little conventions, like the one in Perth (Paging Kathy…), Australia.

(Yes, I know, NAWALT and NAFALT. But isn’t it interesting how many of these radical feminists are employees of government, or of well funded “philanthropic” organizations, or sit on policy making committees? Paul Elam has some mighty serious words on this site.)

It may simply be that decent men become committed to the trail (of a wedding/marriage) because they refuse to believe or are afraid of the relational aggression fallout, that would result from a cold calculation that if the woman they are with were a carousel rider,
they, and the children from such a union, would be responsible for all the complications that result.
If a woman isn’t honest with the decent man she marries about her sexual history,
that means she is expecting him to pick up the tab for all her treatments … which are probably the result of her cock-carousel-riding days.
But then again, I suppose since the wedding vows don’t include “I will be honest with you about my previous relationships” … it should be okay, right?
“In sickness and in health” should carry the disclaimer “only if the sickness is not a result of sexual relationships outside/prior to this marriage”.
But I guess the “good” churchgoing females would oppose this.

I agree with Rum re: Walsh’s website. I lurk both here and there quite a bit, and to say she is much more insightful than most women is an understatement. And she is a fairer host than most, that is true. Sure, she has her biases (as she acknowledges), but I think, as someone noted above, that she and Dalrock both have the same general goal: to help slow down the cluster*&^% that is the present-day relationship between the sexes. Their messages are just aimed at different groups.

@ Rmaxd
Glancing at her archives I already knew and do still acknowledge she’s had different opinions before. She’s upfront and honest about that. She’s said she’s shocked by the things she’s learned and it seems she’s continued to learn more.

I also see her verbiage of “build a better beta” as letting most men be the greater beta’s/lesser alpha’s they would have been had feminism not jammed betatude down men’s throats when they were boys. I don’t think I could ever be an alpha, even with different up bringing, but as I digest my red pill I definitely find myself more comfortable and happy as a greater beta rather than the lesser one society made me.

You’re looking at her as trying to ‘keep men in check’ when I think she would describe herself as ‘telling women to let their men be men and how to help them do it.’ If it leads to mutual happiness for both sexes, neither being taken advantage of by laws or society, who are able to create and raise a stable family, whats the harm?

Ugh. Part of me suspects you’ll advocate a PUA lifestyle for all men. Not all of us want that. I refuse to be a part of marriage 2.0, yes. I want to find a marriage 3.0. I have no idea what it will look like, but it’d need to be more equal for both sexes in all aspects.

Rmaxd: Yes, Walsh is batting for Team Woman. So what? Like you’re not batting for Team Man? The difference is that Walsh wants both men and women to be happy, while you are sulking because she isn’t crazy about PUAs, i.e. men who pump ‘n dump. Give me one good reason Walsh should be nice to the PUAs, rmaxd. Then you can go back to being depressed because not everyone tells you the exact brand of agitprop you like to hear.

One good reason why Walsh should be nice to the PUAs, is because the other option is to be nice to the MGTOWs/MRAs …
and as Walsh said previously, MGTOW/MRA concerns are “an echo chamber”.
Without nice guys to take on the carousel-riding sluts, the PUA model is unsustainable.
So technically, Walsh is SUPPORTING PUAs, by refusing to condemn women who treat men badly.

I understand that a number of men in this sphere are hyper-cynical of women due to their experiences and accrued knowledge of the nature of women and I won’t deny that some have every right to be. However I find it disingenuous to be criticizing Susan Walsh so harshly. She has stated in the past that she is aware that men and women have opposing mating strategies and her blog is geared towards helping women fulfill their biological imperative of securing a mate for a long term relationship or marriage! Is this not analogous to what men like Roissy or Rollo, both of whom are brilliant, do for men and their respective desires? Why don’t they get criticized for not equally promoting realization of feminine biological imperatives? Why does Susan have to bear the burden of pleasing everyone?

The woman is no charlatan. It’s clear to me that she is intellectually honest enough to continuously reassess and adjust her position upon discovery of new information which has been well documented in her past posts. If she is logically inconsistent, point out here her logic fails rather than resorting to inflammatory attacks sprinkled with a few complete statements. I don’t want to come off rude, but there is a small minority of men in this sphere who think any and every woman is their enemy by virtue of existing.

As far as Susan Walsh goes, isn’t she a typical whore who got lucky and snagged a guy at the last minute? Screwing guys in elevators, public toilets and every place she could? I wonder if she told these actions of hers to her future husband before they got married. My guess is not, she just lied to him and then when he figured out, made excuses. She ain’t an ally, she may seem like one at times but don’t be fooled. She is all about teaching women how to slut it up and then snag a man when their looks take a dive.

“The problem I see with [Susan Walsh’s] blog (among many) is that it does absolutely nothing to encourage young men to challenge their fealty to the gynocentric imperatives that are drilled into their heads from birth. In fact, it encourages men to learn Game for explictly gynocentric aims—her version of “man up, for the benefit of women”. She thinks men should learn game…to make themselves more acceptable for women. The various entitlements of women are just taken as is and never questioned.

I don’t necessarily blame her for this—I’m not sure any woman could be counted on to pushback competently against culturally ingrained gynocentrism.”

To women, Game exists to satisfy the female imperative. Game exists to increase the number of “attractive” men, for women’s benefit. But, by the same token, we men turn up our noses at the increasing numbers of unattractive, feral, obnoxious, obese women, and want more attractive women for men’s benefit. The distinction is that the female imperative is culturally dominant and taken for granted; while men’s desires are denigrated and vilified throughout our culture.

Great post. We can list off every scheme, system, method, strategy, whatever you’d use to describe things about how we comport the opposite sex and see that a case can be made that it puts the responsibility still on the man for the relationship. There is a difference, the results of game are not pandering to women , quite the opposite, but you are correct that the overall achieved equilibrium is still beneficial to the relationship and a result of what HE does…..gynocentrism in an easy to squeeze tube.

Only MGTOW, and even there only some have truly extricated themselves from balancing the ball on theor nose. Most of the rest just do it with some detachment, aloofness, style and cool, but its still doing it.

Your last paragraph describes why this is all the case. I hope lots of folks understand what you are saying instead of getting defensive about it, but its been my experience that your words may provoke a certain set of responses…..lets see.

„I’ve briefly left a couple comments that she should atleast address marriage, why men are against it, and ways to positively work towards a happy equal marriage when any sane man wouldn’t get into marriage without a damn good prenup, and even thats tricky.”

I vaguely remember her stating a man shouldn’t demand a prenup before marriage because ’it kills romance’. It’s just idiocy to say something like that.

@Rmaxd

„He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me.”

What Ms. Walsh forgets is that legally speaking, there’s no contract to break. When no-fault divorce is the law of the land, there’s no marriage contract to enforce. Any party can unilaterally file for divorce citing any grounds or excuse whatsoever. Am I wrong?

@ Anonymous
„From what I’ve seen, most high-skilled betas, such as engineers, are driven to do what they by instincts and not necessarily by a need for sex.”

False dilemma. It’s betas as a whole who uphold civilization, not just high-skilled ones. Most betas are ignorant, unimaginative chumps, but all of them make good pack mules, and that’s precisely the point. If all betas work, but only to support themselves, civilization still crumbles. It only endures if all betas do excess work, and the only way to make them do excess work is to hook them into marriage.

Indeed. Civilization would have to crumble to the dust for something like that to happen.

@Celeste

„But really, the vast majority of blue pill men still seem to think just fine of us women”

Do you see that as a blessing or a curse, considering that it’s due to exactly this quality of theirs that women find them unattractive? They think fine of women because they’re ignorant of them, and since they’re ignorant of them, they cannot attract them.

It seems to me that Susan Walsh’s blog fulfills a specific role: informing women (albeit imperfectly and incompletely, in my view) about the realities of the hookup culture and intergender relationships, and helping them get into functioning relationships. It’s much like Athol Kay’s MarriedManSexLIfe, which fills the specific role of expositing Game’s application to marriage.

None of this, I think, should detract from Walsh’s message in the Grim Beeper post. It’s true that marriage rates are on the decline and it’s not getting better. (The subtext is that neither women nor society are doing much to make marriage an attractive life for men, and they are noticing.) Women have a limited time window to marry and have children if that’s what they want. So if a woman wants marriage it needs to be a first priority in her life (much as it was in the lives of countless young women 50 to 60 years ago). It isn’t true that most women can have healthy babies well into their 30s. It’s just not true, and Walsh’s post sounds the alarm. There’s nothing wrong with this, and Susan Walsh is right to be playing Paul Revere on this issue. Walsh is right to point out that our society will have an enormous number of never married and divorced spinsters in the next several years. If women aren’t going to listen to men about it, perhaps they’ll listen to Walsh.

What’s left out is: Women, if you marry, then you make the commitment and stick with it. For life. You have obligations, and you’re expected to meet them: keep yourself reasonably attractive, work on your physical appearance, show kindness and pleasantness, sex at reasonable intervals, and make a pleasant home for your husband. You don’t get to leave or make him miserable because you’re not haaaaappy. You don’t get to withhold sex unreasonably. You don’t have any right to complain and nag incessantly. And you don’t get to cheat because you feel like it.

I’ve often said if women want to be attractive to men, they need to keep their hair long, their makeup on, their weight down and their partner counts down.

Having said all that, though, men don’t exist to provide themselves as boyfriends or husbands to women.

Excellent post. I too was motivated to look at the Monica Mingo blog and the rantings of the atomic hamsters need to be seen to be believed. The following entry (from this month) is an exemplar of the breed.

She’s complaining about man-children and their hideous and irresponsible impulse not to marry a suitable Princess. But not once, anywhere in the comments, is their an inkling of the elephant in the room: that marriage 2.0 is just too ruinously expensive and destructive an institution to even comtemplate for most men. All they can contemplate (in the main) is that men will suffer from infertile wives. The one or two or do seem to vaguely understand that men have other options (marry someone younger and more amenable or don’t marry at all) and that radical feminism might just have been a bit of a disaster are swamped by the atomic hamsters who project their own infertility onto men and, inevitably, deduce that they just have to Man Up BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.

No, Walsh’s failing is the same failing that all women with opinions have, they are wrong opinions.

Women preferred form of promiscuity = good
Man preferred form of promiscuity = BAD

Women form of relationship power = good
Man form of relationship power = BAD

Women initiating divorce = good
Man initiating divorce = BAD

Same old same old. Jez, HUS, frisky, thinking housewife, there is no perceptable difference once you scratch off the exterior, their views are all the same when investigated. My father at least taught me that you don’t listen to what a woman says, you listen to what she DOES. And shaming men is an olympic sport for women.

Walsh is nothing like Athol or Dalrock, her site is firmly based on dismissing men, anything to do with men is dismissed …

ybm summarises her site perfectly …

@Hollenhund
“What Ms. Walsh forgets is that legally speaking, there’s no contract to break. When no-fault divorce is the law of the land, there’s no marriage contract to enforce. Any party can unilaterally file for divorce citing any grounds or excuse whatsoever. Am I wrong?”

Yes, excellent summation, if a contract has no contractual obligations to fulfill it is no longer a contract, contract law 101

Btw Athol gives practical advice, for men to use & implement, to the point their wives come over & thank him …

Dalrock uses detailed with high quality sources, statistics & data to spell out the realities of modern day society for men & women

Walsh basically does none of the above … the exact opposite actually …

Someone tried to paint walsh as some sort of roissy for women … walsh is more like the female version of futrelle, manboobz, her comments pretty much copy his style of dismissing any pro-male comments, walsh also uses the same techniques as futrelle to boost her comment counts

Apropos of feminism….it turns out that the late Valerie Solanas still has a fan club. Except now, they are well funded. And they put on neat little conventions, like the one in Perth (Paging Kathy…), Australia.

One of the favorite topics? Gendercide.

Now, what sort of public organization can get away with sponsoring a fan club and convention for a thankfully now *dead* “wanna-be” murderer and serial killer?

Men are shattered and blind sided by divorce far more than women are. Usually the woman you files for divorce has slowly been making up her mind to do it for some time with much consultation with her girl friends. Maybe because she cheated and thus dissolved her feels of bondedness when married women have good emotional sex with another man, but not when men do.

Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.”

You might also want to check out her advice to Hope about fertility at 30

“The overarching point is to create a more acceptable man for a female defined goal, NOT to truly empower any man. There is no feminine opposite to this; there is no counter effort to make women more acceptable to men – in fact this is actively resisted and cast as a form of slavish subservience. This is the extent of the feminine reality; it’s so instaurating that men, with the aid of ”concerned women”, will spend lifetimes seeking ways to better qualify themselves for feminine approval. That’s the better Beta they hope to create. One who will Man-Up and be the Alpha as situations and use would warrant, but Beta enough to be subservient to the feminine imperative. They seek a man to be proud of, one who’s association reflects a statement of their own quality, yet one they still have implicit control over.

Whether the reasonings are moral, entitlement or ‘honor bound’ in nature the end result is still feminine primacy. The sales pitch is one of manning up to benefit yourself, but the latent purpose is one of better qualifying for normalized feminine acceptance. What they cannot reconcile is that the same benefits that are inherent in becoming more Alpha (however you choose to define that) are the same traits that threaten his necessary position of subservience as a Beta. This is precisely why ‘real’ Game, and truly unplugging, cannot be sanitized.”

“The introduction of artificial contraception correlates with the steady rise in divorce rates, more STD infection, more bitter spinsters, more sluts, environmental problems due to al the artificial estrogen being flushed down the world’s toilets, more sexless marriages due to how the pill alters a woman’s attraction to men – the list goes on.”

Anything that pushes this joke of a civilization into its grave will get my support.

I dont propose a PUA solution, my solution is for women to create larger families, the manospheres solution for women settling for betas earlier, & having kids earlier will just lead to more divorce & more single mothers

The emphasis has to be on women keeping in touch with their nuclear relatives, it is the only way women know how to become good mothers

Without early contact & constant contact with a nuclear set of relatives, women never learn HOW to satisfy their hypergamy & keep their promiscuity in check

Without contact with large amounts of grandparents & uncles & relatives, a daughter never learns how to overcome her biology & promiscuity

Cut off a daughters contact with grandparents & uncles, & she becomes promiscous & her hypergamy goes out of control

Women are designed to exist in a social network of nuclear relatives, ie large nuclear families in places like rural india & rural china, divorce & promiscuity are none-existent

Men are designed to exist out of the familial network women exist in …

@ HöllenhundAnything that pushes this joke of a civilization into its grave will get my support.

Fair enough. My point though was that artificial contraception is what started this mess and it won’t be fixed by more of the same, which seemed to be the implication some were making. Not that I’m saying it even can be fixed; that I’m not so sure about but can’t quite bring myself to “enjoy the decline”.

WRT fertility and Hope’s comment at HUS, while it may be true that many women don’t have trouble conceiving in their 30s, you don’t know if you will or won’t be one of them, so it’s a risk to wait. Of course what Susan said there was typical placating to make a woman feeeeel better, even if it’s not based in reality. It can really be a coin toss with fertility. I know at least two women who have had trouble in their 20s (several months of trying to conceive followed by miscarriage) – and these are healthy, both non-smoking and one teetotaller. Luck of the draw.

That’s precisely the point, CL. I don’t “enjoy the decline”. I want to to come as soon as possible and play out as quick as possible. Just get it over with already! But everybody just prefers to kick the can down the road.

All things considered the decline has been at light-speed in evolutionary terms. 30 years since no-fault divorce was adopted by all the United States, 30 years since the failure of the Equal RIghts Amendment. And only 20 years since the rise of third-wave feminism. This is a generation, a single cohort of people (the tail end of Gen-X and the Millenials) and already people are marrying older and older (with the resulting fertility implications, single parent households are a majority or plurality in all western nations, and men are no longer contributing to societies growth.

I’d say things are going along swimmingly, then again I am an accelerationist just like you are. 🙂

@Dalrock
What is the purpose of you posting Susan’s articles here?
I don’t know if you had noticed it but every time you do the comments become about is “Susan an ally, a feminist in sheep’s clothes, a slut that got lucky with a Beta and is teaching other women to get lucky too…” with nitpicking included than whatever the article is about.
How that helps anything?
It seems that your favorite commenters don’t want you to consider her POV, so IMO you should just please them, stop doing it, is easier than anything. The ones that believe in Susan post there and discuss the article and you surely do the same once in a while.
I don’t see your blog benefiting for this at all, you are just enabling conflict that goes nowhere: Her detractors won’t change their mind and their supporters either and her blog is open for anyone interested to read and reach their own conclusions, so again IMO, this is an useless exercise, and you have a lot more material to work with anyway, so it doesn’t add anything to your work, YMMV and all that.

ybm: “single parent households are a majority or plurality in all western nations”

That hasn’t happened yet, at least not in Sweden. Between 1991 and 2006 the figures have oscillated between 12 and 17 (or something like that) for children age 0-18 who are in the sole custody of their mother. But if you add children who have little contact with their fathers even with shared custody the figures might be higher, but around 70 % still live with both their parents (and maybe 3-5 % with the father only).

while it may be true that many women don’t have trouble conceiving in their 30s, you don’t know if you will or won’t be one of them, so it’s a risk to wait.

This was my point with the off-roading analogy. Women won’t know if the decision is a bad one until it is too late to do something different. In theory fertility treatments mitigate this, but in practice I think the net result is to make the problem worse by creating a false sense of safety.

Indeed, Dalrock. All this mucking around creates a false sense of security – artificial contraception, abortion, fertility treatments… It’s just a hellish complicatedness for something that has such a simple answer (i.e. grow up and stop spending your 20s dicking around, so to speak, and then complaining about the “unfairness” of biology when you realise you goofed).

Although women become less likely to conceive as they age, men can become fathers well into middle age despite drops in their sperm counts, according to researchers.

The study findings suggest that although sperm number and quality may decline with age, fertility does not. Among men older than 50, 58% of fertilization attempts were successful–on par with the 60% rate among younger men, report Dr. Richard J. Paulson and his colleagues at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

I have not read all the comments so the point I wish to make may have already been addressed.

I read in an advice column in my city’s newspaper a letter from a young wife. She stated that she and her husband had agred prior to the marriage that they did not want kids. He said he would never have kids, and she agreed that she didn’t want them either. However, after marriage she unilateraly decided she wanted a baby, and went off birth control. Her complaint was after a period of trying (at least on her part) and still no baby, she talked to her partner and found out he had had a vasectomy before he met her. Both the woman and the advice columnist focused entirely on what a bastard and liar the husband was for not telling her that he had had a vasectomy. Not one word of condemnation or even censure was made about the wife taking it on her self to decide to go off the pill without telling her husband. This is where the male pill will infuriate women; they have a deeply ingrained feeling of entitlement to make all reproductive decisions and men just have to go along. We men need a we to have some say in reproduction.

LeapofaBeta says:
December 20, 2011 at 12:06 am
“..what’s the harm?”
You just mentioned it: Marriage 2.0. Until the laws, courts, judges, attorneys, and psychiatrists are changed and fathers have the same chance of custody of children as mothers do, then marriage is just a man putting his head in a noose that will take his children (maybe not even his), his freedom (jail thru false DV accusation), his money (child support, alimony, both lawyers, paying for court ordered psychiatrists), and possibly lose his job (due to now having a record).
Only those arguing against the travesty marriage has become are honest in the discussion of marriage. That doesn’t describe susan walsh at present.

I think the fertility statistics for women may even be worse . Does the graph of fertility vs. aging
include only those trying to get pregnant for the first time or does it include all women? My understanding is that pregnancy prolongs a woman’s fertile years because the hormonal changes
put the eggs into “hibernation” for a time. The chances of a woman getting pregnant for the first time at a given age may thus be lower than what the statistics cite.

@Legion
“Only those arguing against the travesty marriage has become are honest in the discussion of marriage. That doesn’t describe susan walsh at present.”

Ok. I can see that. I know her views and that she still pushes marriage as is. I’m with you on that its a horrible idea as is for all the reasons Dalrock says and has been saying.

I still think her site is of value because its one of the few female blogs, if not the only one, that has a large amount of readers that are female and see the picture clearer than most of the rest of the blogosphere. I think she has a long ways to go before she will get anywhere men will agree with her on marriage and she seems to be taking frustratingly small steps in that direction, but atleast she seems to be doing so.

And like I said, I doubt I will ever agree with Susan on her views of marriage. But I respect and desire the conversation with women on the subject her blog starts.

CL“The introduction of artificial contraception correlates with the steady rise in divorce rates, more STD infection, more bitter spinsters, more sluts, environmental problems due to al the artificial estrogen being flushed down the world’s toilets, more sexless marriages due to how the pill alters a woman’s attraction to men – the list goes on.”

Uh. No. You are confusing one particular form of contraception with all forms. You also appear to believe that history started around 1961. It didn’t. Family sizes have been in decline in the US for over 150 years – just for a start. I speculate that if hormonal contraception had been invented in, oh, 1940, the effects would have been different. There were sluts in the 1920’s, when the only means of contraception were condoms and diaphragms. But there were also sluts in Europe in the 1770’s…and sluts galore in Rome in the 4th century.

Women cheating more than men would make sense financially for starters. With no fault divorce they have little chance of coming out any worse in the typical divorce settlement. There is no financial incentive not to try to have as much schlong on the side as possible. If she gets caught, oh well, she’ll just get what she was going to get anyway financially in most cases.

Judges don’t want to deal with fault cases, depositions, witnesses, etc. Sure, they’ll humor you and go through the motions, but at then end of the day, after you’ve spent all your money on lawyers and detectives to prove she or he is a lying adulterer, the legal system and the judge gives a big yawn and says “So what?” “50/50 split, she gets the kids, you move out, this is your alimony amount and child support amount, court’s adjourned.” Think this is bullshit? Well, then I’m guessing you haven’t had to go through the legal system for a divorce yet junior.

It would also seem to make sense that women could find themselves participating in an unknowing adulterous harem. So one guy might be banging 3-4 different married broads. I don’t imagine it’s a one cheater to one cheater of each sex perfect ratio.

Kind of fits in with Hypergamy too and women’s inclinations to mate poach. A man might cheat for fun or (cough,cough) love, but he doesn’t want to risk financial ruin by getting his goose cooked and having his wife divorce him. It’s just ass on the side 9 times out of 10. From where I sit, when a woman is cheating, she’s looking for the next man to move to and serious about getting into a relationship with him. Even if that means stealing him from his current wife.

Only the cheaters are too dumb to realize a guy or gal who would cheat on their current spouse, will do it to them, virtually guaranteed. It astounds me that cheaters never figure that out. They are starting a new relationship from the framework that both people are known liars and cheaters. Duh. I suppose that’s why relationships that start off like that have such utterly dismal long term track records.

My theory is that most reasonably attractive women have two men. The one they are with and use for support, and the one they maneuvering to be with because they see him as a step up financially or more tingles. They might not officially move on to the new guy, but they will have him on the side if they don’t want to give up hubby and his financial support. Rest assured ALL women, at a minimum, have at least someone else in their mind as an option they keep tabs on.

I read a book on infidelity. “Not Just Friends” (you can find it on Amazon – a lot of eye opening stats) A thing that struck me as messed up, and this was long before red pill exposure was the author said something to the effect of “If a woman’s husband is too macho the wife might cheat to get emotional attention from a more sensitive man, if her husband is too tame, she might cheat to get more masculine attention.” I thought that’s messed up. Can’t win either way. Then I found Keoni and and Athol and how they were saying, in this day and age boys you better be delivering Alpha and Beta because there is no moral, social, legal or financial reason for her not to cheat and then take you to the cleaners because “It’s all your fault anyway, you pushed me to where I HAD to do this!” Lolz. Yeah I had that said to me.

Unless you live in a really strict religious social framework. (Amish, Mennonite, Muslim, etc.)

But I don’t know jack. So, I’ll shut up. And No, I didn’t get a chance to read all the comments yet. Just wanted to put my first reaction down after reading D’s post. Night.

The graph for this post, entitled “Changing Fertility as Women Age”, is apparently based on data from the 1700s; the data is not valid. Valid data is given by Dunson et al. [HumanReproduction, 2001], which is available athttp://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/5/1399.full
That shows that for healthy women aged 35-39, the chance of getting pregnant within the first year of trying is about 82%. See also the BBC News story “The 300-year-old fertility statistics still in use today”, athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24128176